Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!whuxlm!wws
From: wws@whuxlm.UUCP (Stoll W William)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Results of sugar test
Message-ID: <839@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 18:24:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.839
Posted: Fri Sep 13 18:24:22 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 08:18:58 EDT
References: <1911@aecom.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 30

[Disclaimer:  I am not Walt Stoll]

> 
> Subject: Re: Stoll's experiment
> To: mwg at PHILABS/CMCL2/BELLCORE
> Cc: werner
> --------
> 
> 	Two alternate conclusions can be drawn.
> 	1.  Kinesiology is wrong
> or	2. Medical students are all selected from the other 5%.
> (The latter explanation actually would explain a lot of things.)
> 

3. Experiment conducted incorrectly.

I've witnessed this experiment a lot (well, five) times,
and everyone (self included) had a reaction.  One guy's reaction
was incredible (he was 5'10" and 250 pounds) -- his arm went from
tree trunk to willow branch.  The last few I watched had an extra
twist -- a tiny piece of a special vitamin was given the person
after they had exhibited their sugar reaction, and the test was
rerun.  Their resistance always returned to the pre-sugar level
(maybe this substance should be marketed as a "cure" for sugar?).
Anyway, this extra test helped convince me that "fatigue" resulting
from the first test was not a factor.

Perhaps Walt will comment on the method Steve used...

Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws